Comments by "JLH" (@Kyarrix) on "FRONTLINE PBS | Official" channel.

  1.  @girlfromthebronxbywayofelb7288  Thank you. Getting this kind of positive affirmation is extremely rare and unexpected. It made my day. Knowing that somebody read what I wrote and that it affected them positively is encouraging. From one woman to another, thank you and keep on being you!
    1
  2.  @Icien1  I think it's reasonable to understand why he holds the ideas that he does. The Jewish people have suffered at the hands of pretty much everyone. Before the Holocaust there were pogroms. Jews have been discriminated against, killed with impunity, the church has openly told it's adherents that the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Christ. Anti-semitism is very much alive and well today. In this country you have right wing Trump supporters chanting "Jews will not replace us.". The video presented it as though he were paranoid, he isn't and he wasn't. His fears are well founded. The question of whether he foments discord is different. I don't think it is appropriate for us to weigh in on that based solely on this video. I do not support their right-wing government. but I've also seen what hashappened when Israel tries for peace only to be confronted with Palestinians chanting "Death to the Jews." It exists in slang, people talk about "Jewing someone down" and the left wing in this country doesn't object. Antisemitism is a constant. Whatever side of the political spectrum you may be on, you see it. If the video had presented him as a saint, I would have argued the other side. My point is only that he has good reason to think as he does. He's right about the threat to Israel and to the Jewish people. The rest of it, whether he is unnecessarily contentious, foments discord, acts in ways that he should not, says things that he should not, that is probably correct. I disagree with him politically and he has taken actions that have been wrong. But he is not paranoid and I think it is clear that he does what he does out of genuine care for the Jewish people and Israel, not power for power's sake. Also, I don't think he wants war over peace. I think if you were to present him with a genuine peace accord that would be valued equally by both sides, and would be fair to both sides, and where the actions of both sides would be judged equally, he would take it in a heartbeat.
    1
  3.  @Icien1  I didn't say that it did. As soon as someone intentionally twists what I have said that lets me know that they aren't interested in a real conversation.
    1
  4. What is wrong with you? What kind of sickness lives in you that you see something suspicious with that? People retire from government positions and take security jobs with the church. You don't have an objection to that but because he took a job with a non-Christian organization you think something untoward is happening? How sick and disgusting is that kind of thinking, anti-semitic ugliness in you.
    1
  5. Why did you refer to him as Rape? You could have used his given name. There is no reason to accommodate something like that. What if he had named himself the n word? Would you call him that? Any other ugly epithet or offensive term? It would have been better to use his first or last name. You don't name yourself Rape unless you're trying very hard to intimidate. Helping him with that by uncritically going along with it was not the right choice. Then you let a statement that he (Rape) had a direct line to the group's "intellectual leader" go unchallenged. Intellectual leader? There is no intellect to be found in this. There is a lot of hatred, anger, misinformation, emotion and rage but there is no intellect. Referring to someone as their intellectual leader without adding anything else to clarify is a questionable call. There is a danger when reporting on terrorists/hate groups of inadvertently helping them by advertising them and their beliefs. When you let things go unchallenged such as calling someone Rape and referring to a member of a genocidal terrorist group as an intellectual leader you risk normalizing it. It's especially important when providing information about groups like this one to clarify and explain. It might seem obvious but given everything that has happened and is happening in our country, it is no longer as obvious as we might have thought.
    1
  6. You are saying that when a woman has a child and the man is not present, that the woman made a bad choice? Wouldn't it be his poor choice? What about in cases of abuse? In your view, a woman should stay with an abusive or violent man? Why do you default to assuming that the absence of a man is the woman's fault?
    1
  7. Please let's not let the right determine terminology. It's already a win for them when we refer to their position as "pro-life." If they are pro-life what are we, pro death, anti-life? Let's call their position what it is, anti-choice. One of these sides is pro-life, but it isn't theirs. Their position results in much more loss of life than pro-choice ever could be.
    1